I know Jon personally. He loves this country and sees what the present
government is doing to it. Is he radical? No... He does want people to think
when they see his work. Reaction is good. Offensive? Absolutely not. If you
struggle with this painting and what it says you will pull your hair out when
you see his painting titled: "The Forgotten Man". this painting makes
liberals confulse. I am disapointed in BYU, but they have the right to do and
sell what they want. The loss is to the customer. You see liberals like to
censor anything they disagree with. (look at some of the above comments)
censorship is okay if it has anything to do with conservatism or critical of our
current president. Wake up!!!!! BTW Jon is a BYU alumnus. The bookstore is going
to lose a lot of money from this decision. Because of one liberal professor.
Amazing......... Jon is a great artist and an amazing person. I for one am proud
to know him. He is one of the kindest people you will ever meet.

I'm a conservative and I believe
this artist has every right to produce and sell anything he wants to produce
just like I supported the Danish artist who drew the cartoon that got him into
trouble with the Muslim world.

I also believe private organizations
have every right to pick and chose what they want to offer for sale.

ida-coug |
10:43 a.m. April 28, 2011 Pocatello, IDHe loses all credibility when
he states that "Obamacare" was passed with a disapproval of the
American majority. It was prominent on the platform he used to get elected. A
majority of Americans voted for him knowing full well that it would be done.

BYU is a religious institution, not political. To say that they're at fault for
removing a political item from the bookstore and that they should show opposing
views is like saying inappropriate material should be viewable in LDS Chapels.
It makes no sense and it's wonderful that BYU realized the problems and fixed
them. They were not refusing the artist from selling other items in the
bookstore, just those that didn't fit the overall religious mission of the
University.

The Church is a worldwide organization lead by the
Priesthood and with the intent of bringing mortals unto Christ.

Worldwide there are a huge range of political entities and governments. From
communism to socialism to far-right ideologies to monarchies and dictatorships.
Every land has their current and historic range of political influences.

The Church is focused on Christianity. As Christ said "Render unto
Caesar what is Caesar's...". He did not care what the political issues
were, His focus was on bringing us back to our Father.

Whether the
Constitution is more important than China's current Consitution has nothing to
do with the Church and the Gospel.

How ironic--a comment I tried to post earlier was censored, though it had, to my
knowledge, nothing that violates the rules in the e-mail the DesNews sent me
rejecting my comment.

I'll try again: True art allows for multiple
interpretations and is a dialogue between the artist and his/her viewers. This
painting has only one thing to say, and it says it badly. It's more a cartoon
than art; more propaganda than reasoned dialogue. Like a black velvet painting
of dogs playing poker, it only exists to get one message across: The
conservative way of viewing the world is the only way; none else need apply. I'm glad that BYU put principle above profit in this case. That tells me, more
than anything, that BYU's still on the right track.

The bad people have the truth, since Darwin's work while primitive by today's
research is nevertheless proven and Skousen's conspiracy stuff which seeks to
explain what is complicated in unrealistic elementary form, is discredited by
any economic experts. If truth is a bad thing then put me on the bad side. Using
Christ in any political way is disgusting, only meant to use the Savior of the
world to sell a divisive message. If the Tea Party would go this far and hold s
man most who know him would call a nutcase with an exaggerated resume, Skousen,
in such high esteem then I'm very happy to remain a moderate.

In the recent statement "The Mormon Ethic of Civility," the Church
said the following:

"The Book of Mormon tells a sober story of
civilizational decline in which various peoples repeat the cycle of prosperity,
pride and fall. In almost every case, the seeds of decay begin with the
violation of the simple rules of civility."

This painting is
anything but civil. It demonizes entire groups of people with the most childish
and clumsy stereotypes. It flies in the face of the Church's position of
political neutrality.

"The political diversity of Latter-day
Saints spans the ideological spectrum. Individual members are free to choose
their own political philosophy and affiliation. Moreover, the Church itself is
not aligned with any particular political ideology or movement. It defies
category. Its moral values may be expressed in a number of parties and
ideologies."

McNaughton's art directly contradicts the brethren
on this. His painting insists that only one political position is acceptable to
god.

"The Church views with concern the politics of fear and
rhetorical extremism that render civil discussion impossible."

I
can think of no better description of McNaughton's art than "fear and
rhetorical extremism."

Thanks for the clarification. It makes me feel so much
better to know that you were only slamming religious conservatives in Utah.

---------

Perhaps the Book Store is not at fault. As Rifeman
wrote, it is a private organization and every business should have the right to
choose what they sell. I know first hand how long a BYU football game lasts -
when I can't buy a diet coke at the concession stand. No, I don't think that
BYU should sell caffeinated products nor do I oppose their policy.

What I am having trouble with is understanding what BYU found offensive in
that painting. They're not accountable to me but I am curious.

You
said exactly what I was thinking when I saw his work at U-Mall around
Christmas.Illustration for the National Review would be the
"Right" place this painting. BYU wouldn't let a real Artist be
displayed a few years ago, (Rodin) so why let a political statement parading as
art remain?

The negative fear of liberals taking over BYU is probably why it is good this
painting is no longer sold at BYU as it apparently encourages such political
thought. That helps establish BYU's good judgment in this case. The artist is
free to sell it anywhere else. And I am free not to shop at such places.

Wow... Jon has accomplish quite a bit by removing his paintings. It has brought
out the self-righteous elitest members who tell us what the "brethren"
would or wouldn't like about the painting. Even a few who think they are art
critic's but wouldn't know great art if it bit them on the prosterior. Yet their
hateful rhetoric shows in their comments. "Utah Conservative" and
"I'm smarter than you" attitude. Then those of course who say the
Savior would be offended by being used in the painting. I think the Savior is
more offended by what is happening to this great country and from what is being
allow under the guise of "Freedon of Speech" than be portrayed in a
painting. Those of us who know Jon, know that he does nothing for
self-grandization and has a great love for the Savior. BYU has the right not to
sell the prints. Jon also has the right to remove them. I think if someone
painted standing hand in hand with the Savior many of you would think it was
great.

A liberal professor at BYU, imagine that! I know students have graduated from
the BYU law school and have gone on to become the executive director of the ACLU
of Utah but this is revealing. Thanks for reporting this it was very
enlightening.

This guys art = 1. Priestcraft (Making money off of religion)2.
Boring. The art does not stand out other than the inflamatory ideas he tries to
stir up with his attempts to captivate extremists. They look pretty ordinary as
far as art goes. So buy them if you want to but don't call it fine art.

Everyone seems agreed that this painting is a political statement. The artist is
depicting Jesus Christ as taking sides in a political debate. The LDS Church
(and BYU) maintains a position of political neutrality on all but a very few
issues.

BYU does not want to risk sending the message that those who
disagree with this artist on current issues are rebelling against God.

Just another example of the church editing what they don't want the members or
in this case the students to see. They do have a right not to carry the
painting, but their reasoning is not sound. People who are offended by it don't
have to buy it or look at it. People who do should be able to buy it and look at
it all they want. How weak are we becoming as a society when we get offended by
artwork? It seems people now days get offended by just about anything, and it is
sad.